From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jan 12 11:27:41 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ex86W-00027n-Ac for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:24 -0800 Received: from web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ex86P-00027g-EZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:24 -0800 Received: (qmail 95023 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jan 2006 19:27:16 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Q8Y4EviAq4jOO7VHubdT+qeAimlTy0GjG5zlP3la1ar/1DcBn/Jas+9hFNfWaDVHup6o0kUNXy4ShWcwHx5VNmpEXFOtQ1+S1qOU7YkaApaW0EE6YXaKTjRWxuZIHr/SqoTyxMl5RXYvkj7/Km1gFPc7sgmVkJMeHtIc5HRH8Pc= ; Message-ID: <20060112192716.95021.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.158.161] by web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:16 PST Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:16 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: cmevla a class of brivla To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <005801c617a5$e5229790$a0d2400a@caroe1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-archive-position: 11047 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Betsemes wrote: > Is there a proposal? For making cmevla be a type of brivla? I don't think so; this was at best exploratory: what would happen if... . It does seem that nothing very drastic would happen (but there may be deeper problems yet to come to light), but that still does not make it to the level of saying it would be a good idea to do it (though there are some points on that side) and certainly not of actually proposing the change. I would tend to favor the change, were it proposed, at least partly because I don't like any of the historic Lojban uses of {me} (I think they are already covered or could be with less dramatic moves) and the cmevla as brivla would do away with the Loglan original as well. The bit about _{me ... moi} IS a proposal, which suffers (in my view) from using {me} in yet another sense and {moi} in an unrelated (OK, you can make up a kind of story which makes this use look a little like what happens with orderings) sense (and is a discontinous component that cannot be analyzed into its parts). > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jorge Llamb�as" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:09 PM > Subject: [lojban] Re: cmevla a class of brivla > > > > On 1/9/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > Of course, the uncertainty about > > > what {me} means (there are at least three > so far > > > today) doesn't help, but anything like it > would > > > be subject to similar problems of excessive > > > length. > > > > According to the current baseline (CLL) {me > } > > means: x1 is/are among the referents of > "". > > > > The old (ma'oste) definition was: x1 is > specific to in aspect x2 > > > > What's the third possibility? > > > > > But obviously some device is needed to > > > use sumti as predicates, else ambiguity > results. > > > > In addition to {me } there are {me > moi} and all > > the other {me MOI}s that convert a > sumti into a predicate. > > > > The place structure I use for {me > moi} is > > "x1 is/are 's x2 by rule/relationship > x3", which, while not > > exactly the same as the old {me }, > does cover a similar > > ground. > > > > I haven't found any uses for the rest of the > MOIs yet. > > > > > Whether it needs to be as complex as it > often now > > > is is less clear. In particular, can cmevla > -- > > > not whole sumti -- be used directly without > problems? > > > > Can they be so used with the current gramma? > No. > > > > Could the grammar be modified to allow it? > Yes, trivially. > > > > Would it cause problems? It depends what you > mean by > > "problems". It would require using a {cu} > that is currently > > allowed but not required. You'd have to say > {la djan cu klama} > > instead of just {la djan klama}. > > > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > lojban-list-request@lojban.org > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to > http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > > you're really stuck, send mail to > secretary@lojban.org for help. > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to > http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to > secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.